2

I'm studying Apple's implementation of popen() at https://opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-167/gen.subproj/popen.c.auto.html and noticed that they do execl(_PATH_BSHELL, "sh", "-c", command, NULL) instead of execl(_PATH_BSHELL, command, NULL).

Why would you want to (or should you) exec an executable, e.g. a.out via sh -c instead of just the executable itself?

If you exec sh -c a.out instead of just a.out itself, does the actual a.out process end up being a "grandchild" process and not a child process?

StoneThrow
  • 5,314
  • 4
  • 44
  • 86

2 Answers2

3

Why would you want to (or should you) exec an executable, e.g. a.out via sh -c instead of just the executable itself?

popen() is designed to run shell commands that include shell syntax like > redirection, | pipes, and && command chaining. It needs to pass the string through sh -c in order to support those constructs. If it didn't those syntactical features would be passed verbatim to the program in question as arguments.

For example, popen("make clean && make") should trigger two make invocations. Without sh -c it would call make once with three arguments, as if one had typed

$ make clean '&&' make

at the terminal.

If you exec sh -c a.out instead of just a.out itself, does the actual a.out process end up being a "grandchild" process and not a child process?

Yes, that is correct. There will be a sh process in between the current process and a.out.

John Kugelman
  • 349,597
  • 67
  • 533
  • 578
  • 2
    That last depends on what `sh` is. If it's bash or zsh, for example, it will exec without forking (if the command is simple enough), so it will end up being a child. Dash doesn't do that, so if you're using a system where sh is dash, it will work as you indicate. – rici Oct 01 '20 at 22:27
0

that they do execl(_PATH_BSHELL, "sh", "-c", command, NULL) instead of execl(_PATH_BSHELL, command, NULL)

The latter would NOT have executed command directly, but _PATH_BSHELL (/bin/sh) with its $0 set to command and no arguments, resulting in an shell expecting commands from its stdin.

Also, that syntax relies on NULL being defined to an explicit pointer (e.g. ((void*)0)), and not just 0, which is not guaranteed anywhere. While they can do that in their implementation (because they control all the headers), it's not what you should do in application code.

And no, execl(command, command, (void*)NULL) wouldn't have executed command directly either, unless command is a) a full path and b) in an executable format (binary or a script starting with a she-bang #! -- the latter being a non-standard extension). If command was a simple command name to be looked up in PATH (like pwd or a.out) or an executable script not starting with a she-bang, you should've used execlp instead of execl.

The exec[lv]p[e] functions do some of the things a shell does (like looking through the PATH), but not all of them (like running multiple commands or expanding variables): that's why functions like system(3) or popen(3) pass the command to /bin/sh -c. Notice that with both it's /bin/sh, not the user's login shell or the $SHELL from the environment which is used.

If you exec sh -c a.out instead of just a.out itself, does the actual a.out process end up being a "grandchild" process and not a child process?

Only with some shells like dash. Not with bash, ksh93, mksh, zsh, yash, busybox, etc, which will execute a.out directly instead of forking and waiting for it.